Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Lambert v Barron Case Brief
Case Brief Assignment (CA2)
You may upload a doc here, or type directly in the text box area of this assignment.
There is a case brief information document located in your home module. Please read it, along with the information and instructions below for this assignment.
State relevant facts (in your own words – paraphrase case); This should be about 1 paragraph, not more than 2.
What is the issue (or issues) before the appellate court? Usually 1-2 issue questions, you may focus on just one issue – but, your law, analysis and holding must be mapped to the issue that you select.
What is the law that the judge applied? (Cite a case law precedent or statute that the judge used in his/her opinion.) Students may use bullets here – or just list the law that the court used. You are not required to list every case that the judge referenced, but you must reference at least 1 case (which you will apply in the key analysis section). Be sure that the law that you select is mapped to the issue, law and analysis.
What was the key analysis? This is the part of the case brief where you would apply the law used by the court to the facts in issue to resolve the issue question. This should be about 1-2 paragraphs. Be sure to map your analysis to the law and the issue and the holding.
How did the court decide the case? What is the holding? This should be about 1-3 sentences. A holding is not simply a statement of who won the case. It requires some mention of the issue question, and you need to explain how the court resolved the issue question. Holding must be mapped to issue selected for your brief.
this is the name of the book:
please let me know in case you don’t find the book
Lambert v Barron Case Brief
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Lambert v Barron Case Brief |
Lambert v Barron Case Brief